AGRIPPINA the YOUNGER by Bachelor of Arts Oklahoma State
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AGRIPPINA THE YOUNGER By DIANE· STAINES _JRMLMAN/ Bachelor of Arts Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 1971 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ART.S July, 1972 QKLAHOMA l'MTt UttHER81 I tRf\?~RV FEB 5 1973 .. -~ i .... .......__,, .... ~~-- . ~ ... ,,.,_ ... ,,..,.... AGRIPPINA THE YOUNGER Thesis Approved: I Dean of the Graduate College ; ; ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would, very briefly, like to thank those people who guided me through not only my thesis, but through graduate school as well. First, to my advisor, Dr. Neil Hackett, who waded through several thesis proposals with me and finally found the topic I could both work with and appreciate. Without Dr. Hackett I s occasional jokes and prod dings this work might never have been completed. Next, thanks must go to Dr. George Jewsbury who convinced me I could receive my Master's in a year. Dr. Odie B. Faulk deserves a heartwarming thanks for en couraging me and l:i,stening to the woes of a typical graduate student. Thanks also go to Dr. Bernard W. Eissenstat who encouraged me, and to my sister, Cathy, who convinced me my junior year that history was my niche~ Finally to my husband Bob, who decided to stay an extra year in Stillwater so that I might obtain my Master's goes my deepest thanks for both the patience and money that helped me reach my goal. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION • • • • 1 II. AGRIPPINA'S EARLY YEARS • 6 III. AGRIPPINA AND CLAUDIUS . 14 IV. AGRIPPINA AND NERO . 31 V. CONCLUSION • 50 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 55 iv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Agrippina the Younger is viewed with suspicion by many historians. Consequently, one is forced to tread precarious ground when a study of Agrippina's Life is attempted. The historian must decide whether or not modern sources have been led astray by accounts of the ancient Roman writers and their natural bias against women in politics. The material of the ancient historians in regard to Agrippina is amazingly biased against her, and one cannot but ponder the reasons for this one sided view. Therefore, it has been necessary to review the ancient sources and the position of women within the Roman Empire before a de tailed study of Agrippina's life can be undertaken. The primary sources available for a study of Agrippina's place in Roman history are Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio Cassius and Pliny. Tacitus is considered to be the most trustworthy of the four by modern writers. The reasons are various; first of all, he appears to be more analytical than the other three; second, he is more objective in his conjectures of people and places; and last, his accuracy in relating events is superior to the other three. Tacitus lived in Rome sometime between the years 55 and 120 A. D. He was politically motivated for many years and developed an analytical mind which helped him in his self-appointed task of historian. Tacitus, however, was biased most favorably towards the Roman Republic and unfavorably against Imperial 1 2 1 ~owe. Unfortunately, this antagonism towards the Roman Empire colored his attitude towards the people he wrote about during the era in which he lived. Therefore, it can be surmised that since most Romans were predisposed unfavorably to women in any facet of govern- ment, Tacitus was probably more unfair to Agrippina in his writings than if Roman tradition had approved of the presence of women outside the home. Although Tacitus may not approve of Agrippina, he remains true to scholarly principles in that he grud~in~ly credits her with putting the Roman government back on its feet in 49. Pliny the Younger, a contemporary of Tacitus, was born in 62. Although he is considered a credible historian, Pliny wrote too little about the life of Agrippina to be used as much as Tacitus in a study of her life. He can be relied on as an accurate source in a few instances when he does mention Agrippina, and for this reason he is included in a study of her life. Suetonius lived around 69 to 140. Like Tacitus and Pliny, he was born after Agrippina's hegemony. Although he practiced law for a while, scholarship was his main interest. Probably the greatest fault of Suetonius is that he included much court gossip in his On The Life~ the Caesars, and failed to distinguish between what was rumor and what was fact. However, he proves to be a valuable source in such matters as official acts of the senate, for he was allowed access to the official archives. Suetonius, then, is a reliable source when the historian desir!eS accurate accounts of govern- mental proceedings, but he is not entirely reliable in his portrayal 1rvar Lissner, The Caesars, Might and Madness. (New York: Capricorn Books, 1965), p. 16. 3 of the private lives of those imperial personages about whom he . 2 wrJ..tes. Dio Cassius is the least trustworthy of the four Roman historians. Not only is his information about certain people suspect, but his ac- curacy in placing events and dates is questionable. With Dio Cassius' History, the historian receives the ultimate in conjecture and an un- scholarly attitude. He is used in this study of Agrippina's life to show the extremes to which an historian will sometime go in order to prove a point. Dio Cassius wished to show Agrippina as an irmnoral, unsavory person unfit for adulation of any kind. He is also used be- cause some modern historians have relied on his interpretations of Agrippina's life and, by showing the inconsistencies of Dio Cassius, it is hoped that the same inconsistencies will come to light in the works of those modern historians who extensively utilized him. Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Dio Cassius were born either a few years before Agrippina's death, or years afterward. Therefore, all were forced to rely on information supplied by those who had witnessed her life or heard about it. It is, then, reasonable to assume that much of the information they received about the charac- ter of Agrippina was either secondhand or prejudiced. One must remember that Agrippina was very unpopular by the time of her death and her good qualities were obscured by Nero shortly afterward. Consequently, Agr~ppina has suffered in history and will continue to do so unless more historians revise their ideas about her life. This revision can begin in two ways. First, modern writers can start by 2Moses Hadas, A History of Latin Literature. (New York: Columbia University Preis-s, -1:~§2), :P• 332. 4 questioning the authenticity of the material presented by the ancient sources in regard to Agrippina's life. Second, the position occupied by women in Rome before and during Agrippina's life is essential for any historian to know before attempting to study this woman's life; for it is the traditional treatment of women in Rome that has colored the ancient interpretations, and hence most modern histories of the life of Agrippina. Until recently, women have held an inferior position to men. However, in the ancient world, the position of women differed from place to place. The ancient Near East at times had, and accepted, the rule of women. Hatshepsut and Cleopatra are but two examples of early women rulers in Egypt, and in other areas a woman's rule was not unheard of. Rome was different, however. In a sense, Rome was considered the fatherland and females were by -tradition inferior to the males. Consequently, the mere idea of women rulers was abhorent to the tradition-minded Romans, and when a woman tried to break through this invisible barrier, as Agrippina attempted, she was both feared and hated. Woman was a symbol of purity and stability to the Roman mind. Her place was in the home, and any deviation from the norm was severely punished. Augustus was forced to exile his first wife, Julia, when she was unfaithful, and his second wife, Livia, tread pre carious ground when she became empress. The Roman empress, as well as the rest of the women within the imperial domains, was to be above re proach, and was constantly watched to make sure that she did not blunder. Women such as Livia and Antonia were highly revered by the Roman populace. They were honored as the highest females of the land 5 and were expected to uphold those virtues of chastity and piety which had been paramount in the Roman families of the early Republic. The lives of the imperial women were not completely sterile, though. They could be, and were, consulted about important affairs of the empire by the emperors. However, this was invariably done in private, for it was not proper for women to make decisions of state. Women like Livia and Octavia were aware of their positions and did nothing to en danger them. With the death of Augustus, a change took place within the empire. The succession had been a thorny problem and would remain so. An op position party to the new emperor Tiberius grew up centered around Agrippina the Elder and her husband, Germanicus. As the granddaughter of Augustus, she felt her line had a claim to the succession and fought to secure what she felt was the right of her heirs. It was in this type of uncertain environment and change that Agrippina the Younger grew up. CHAPTER II AGRIPPINA'S FARLY YEARS When writing about the life of Agrippina, the historian is con- fronted with the insurmountable problem of not knowing the real person.